As many readers likely recall, as of January 2015, Merck owns Cubist. Cubist marketed the antibiotic Cubicin® (daptomycin) — which Kenilworth now counts a very nice add-on franchise. Various would-be generic manufacturers are challenging Merck/Cubist patents in federal courts around the nation — in an effort to bring a much-cheaper, non-branded version of daptomycin to market, perhaps even before June 2016 (though that outcome seems unlikely, as of this writing — backgrounder here).

Merck/Cubist believes its patent position prevents generics until September 2019 — but it lost at trial on that claim — so that too is up on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was completed on July 8, 2015 — so a decision may now come at any time.

As with all such matters, we may learn a little more — when Merck files its third quarter SEC Form 10-Q next month, even if the appeal isn’t decided by then. Here is where things stood, after the July oral argument — per pages 23 and 24 of the last Merck Form 10-Q:

. . . .Cubicin — In March 2012, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed in the United States against Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”), with respect to Hospira’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to market a generic version of Cubicin. A trial was held in February 2014, and in December 2014 the district court found the composition patent, which expires in June 2016, to be valid and infringed. Later patents, expiring in September 2019 and November 2020, were found to be invalid. Hospira has appealed the finding that the composition patent is not invalid and the Company has cross-appealed the finding that the later patents are invalid. The appeal was heard in July 2015, and the Company is currently awaiting the decision. If the decision is upheld on appeal, Hospira’s application will not be approved until at least June 2016.

In October 2013, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed in the United States against Strides, Inc. and Agila Specialties Private Limited (“Strides/Agila”), with respect to Strides/Agila’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to market a generic version of Cubicin. The lawsuit automatically stays FDA approval of Strides/Agila’s application until February 2016 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. If the Hospira decision is upheld on appeal, Strides/Agila’s application will not be approved until at least June 2016.

In July 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed in the United States against Fresenius, with respect to Fresenius’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to market a generic version of Cubicin. The lawsuit automatically stays FDA approval of Fresenius’s application until November 2016 or until an adverse court decision, if any, whichever may occur earlier. If the Hospira decision is upheld on appeal, Fresenius’s application will not be approved until at least June 2016.

An earlier district court action against Teva Parenteral Medicines Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”) resulted in a settlement whereby Teva can launch a generic version of the product in December 2017 (June 2018 if the Company obtains pediatric marketing exclusivity on Cubicin). If the Hospira decision is upheld on appeal, Teva will be able to launch in June 2016.
In October 2014, Agila Specialties Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Agila/Mylan”) filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) seeking the invalidity of the September 2019 and November 2020 patents. In April 2015, Agila/Mylan withdrew its petitions for IPR in exchange for the Company agreeing to narrow the issues in the Strides/Agila lawsuit referenced above. In November 2014, Fresenius filed petitions for IPR at the USPTO seeking the invalidity of the September 2019 patents. In May 2015, the USPTO granted Fresenius’s petition for an IPR on the September 2019 patents. In July 2015, Fresenius filed petitions for IPR seeking invalidity of the November 2020 patents. The USPTO has six months from filing to determine whether it will institute the requested IPR proceedings. . . .